A Portfolio Approach to Local Energy and Environmental Planning

A Case Study of New York City

John Lee & Vatsal BhattBrookhaven National Laboratory

Owen CarrollSUNY Stony Brook

Edward LinkyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Annex IX Technical Conference, ETSAPTaipei, Taiwan, 4-7 April 2005

Overview of the Presentation

• New York City Energy Issues• Objective and Scope of Study• Description of Portfolio Approach

– NYC MARKAL Modeling Framework– EnergyPlus - Building Demand Analysis– MM5 for UHI Mitigation Studies

• Initial Results and Analysis

New York City Energy Issues• Deteriorating System

reliability: load requirement at 9 GW in 2004, increasing to 9.6 GW in 2009, 3 GW in shortfall without demand response & out of state capacities

• Frequent overload & congestion at load pockets/substations, with limited distributed generation capacity to support critical services

Blackout

Objective & Scope of the Study

• Evaluate the impact of efficiency improvements in buildings and mitigation measures in urban heat island effect on electricity & power demand in hot spots of NYC

• Integrate the system-wide changes in energy - power demand, benefit/cost, and environmental emissions due to the impacts from hot-spots

Development of a portfolio approach to: Development of a portfolio approach to:

Institutional Organization

SAICEarthPledgeStony Brook Research Foundation

GISS/Columbia University /CUNY at Hunter

NY Building Owners Management Association

NYC Department of Environmental Conservation

SUNY at Stony Brook

New York ISONYSERDA

Brookhaven National Laboratory

Con Edison & ConEd Solution of New York

U.S. EPA Region 2

Working GroupStakeholderSponsor

MARKAL-EnergyPlus-MM5 Interactions

Central Stations

DER

TEELC TEXLCGrid

Exchange

Energy StarAC

Centrifugal Chiller

Electric HeatPumps

Centrifugal Chiller

ConservationShell - DSM

Demand for AC in Buildings

EnergyPlus

MM5/UHIDER: Distributed Energy ResourcesTEELC: High Voltage Electricity Transmission TEXLC: Low Voltage Electricity Transmission

NYC Case Study Hot Spots

Maps Source: NYSERDA UHI Study

Lower Manhattan

New York City

Hot Spot/Load Pocket

Maps Source: NYSERDA UHI Study

Current Focus - Lower Manhattan

NYC MARKAL Model• Multi-region structure to measure the impacts of

Energy Star technologies and Urban Heat Island measures on the electricity demand at the sub-station level

• Network capability to model central and distributed generation plants, transmission & distribution and sub-station peak loadcharacteristics

• Integrated framework for evaluating NYC system -wide effects in electricity flow, peak load, criteria and GHG emissions, due to changes in hot pockets/substations

NYC MARKAL Modeling Framework

LowerManhattan

CentralStations

DER

TEXLCGrid

ExchangeTEELCResourceImports

Fordham

Mid-TownWest

CrownHightsOcean

Parkway

Maspeth

Emissions

BI_TRD: IMPELCLM,t = EXPELCNY,t

PEAKDA (IMPELCLM,t) = 0

Substation: ESUBSTLM

INP(ENT)c = OUT(ENC)c = 0LM9

ELC Imports

EnergyPlus Building Energy Simulation

• Builds on the most popular features and capabilities of BLAST and DOE-2

• Calculates HVAC loads to maintain thermal control setpoints, based on the building’s physical make-up, mechanical systems, environmental conditions, etc.

Web: www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/

EnergyPlus/UHI: Building Mix

Maps Source: NYSERDA UHI Study

Definition of MARKAL Case Runs

Case Name Case Description

BASE Business as usual generation, load Curves and demand, baseline technologies

ESUHI Introduction of Energy Star technologies,UHI induced reductions in energy demand

Energy Star Technologies

UHI Measures

Measures:• Green/light colored roofs• Light colored pavements• Street vegetation/shade trees

Impacts:• Increased albedo effect• Reduced outdoor temperatures

Peaking Load for Lower Manhattan Sub-station

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

MW

BASE ESUHI1

Impacts on Lower Manhattan Substation

Annual Electricity Consumption for Lower Manhattan Sub-station

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

MW

h

BASE ESUHI1

Impacts on New York CityAnnual Electricity Savings for New York City System

-350,000

-300,000

-250,000

-200,000

-150,000

-100,000

-50,000

02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

MW

h

Peaking Load Reduction for New York City System

-120

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

MW

Total System Cost Reductions - New York City

-6000

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

Mill

ion

$

Emission Reduction due to UHI Measures and Energy Star Technologies – NYC

Net Reductions in Criteria Pollutants for New York City

-180

-160

-140-120

-100

-80

-60-40

-20

02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

Ton

NOX P10 SOX

Net CO2 Reductions for New York City

-45,000

-40,000

-35,000

-30,000

-25,000

-20,000

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

02005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Years

Ton

CO2

Initial Observations and Conclusions

• Do UHI mitigation & Energy Star make a difference in NYC ? - Yes, these programs potentially reduce one-fifth of the shortfall in peaking demand projected in 2015

• Do these programs bankrupt NYC? - No, on the contrary, they save a bundle.

• Should NYC implement these programs? - Absolutely, with No Regret

Peak Load and Electricity Demandin MARKAL

0 4 8 12 16 20 24Hours

Average nightLoad for seasonWith highestdemand

Baseload plants

Installed capacity

Forced Outage Load curve forday withhighest peakdemand

Average dayload for seasonwith highestdemand

Scheduled Outage (e.g. Maintenance)

RESERVE

Fraction of Installed Capacity to Meet Peak Requirements

MM5 Focus• 4 - km resolution to

simulate mesoscaleclimate of New York City metropolitan area

• 1 - km resolution to study UHI processes and effects and mitigation strategies on electricity load pockets and hot spots

• Key output includes surface temperature, wind speed and humidity

NYC Air Temperature, Aug14, 2002 10:30 AM

MM5 Simulation, 10 Km, August 10, 2003